Do You Mostly See New or Old Movies When You Go to the Cinema?

Do you think that's a purposeful thing, or ineptitude? It seems to me that it's more akin to the way the music industry fumbled the advent of the mp3 than an on-purpose choice to do away with theaters.

Los Angeles is definitely ground zero for movie-goers. When I lived there I went to the movies all the time. I know it's gone, but the Silent Movie Theater was a treasure, and the last theater in the U.S. that showed exclusively silents.

I still visit L.A. a couple times a year, and I often plan at least some aspects of the trip around what's playing in theaters when I need to be there. When I was there last month I caught a John Ritter double feature at the New Beverly, as well as one of Leonard Maltin's 1930s double-features, along with The Exorcist at the Vista. Earlier this year I was there to see a hard-to-find film from 1933, Deluge, at the Ted Mann theater, along with a bunch of other stuff I'd otherwise never have been able to see on a big screen.

I'm lucky that here in Austin there are a lot of options for older films.

What are some of the recent things you've seen?

I watched Megalopolis and it's 100% a theater movie. It's a challenging film, and one that I'm not surprised most modern viewers dislike. There's a throwback quality, and an earnestness, to the dialogue that feels like it comes from the 1950s. Between that and the art deco everything, it has a retro feel, but at the same time it portrays the zeitgeist of today better than anything else I've seen. But then, it kind of falls apart at the end.

Where in San Francisco did you see the '40s double-bill? What films? It's very surprising to me that the audience was talking through the film, especially given that they were older people, who tend to be quieter than younger movie-goers. I lived most of my life in the Bay Area, and saw movies in San Francisco constantly, and never experienced that.